JODI LOVELESS V ROBERT THOMAS TREFIL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JODI LOVELESS,
UNPUBLISHED
October 3, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
No. 199331
Montcalm Circuit Court
LC No. 91-00N31-DP
RICHARD LOVELESS and PATRICIA
LOVELESS,
Appellees,
v
ROBERT THOMAS TREFIL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Hood and Hoekstra, JJ.
HOOD, J. (dissenting in part).
I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that the trial court
did not err in merely adopting the findings of the Friend of the Court (“FOC”) investigator regarding the
child's best interests without making an independent determination as required by MCL 722.23; MSA
25.312(3). As was pointed out in Daniels v Daniels, 165 Mich App 726, 730; 418 NW2d 924
(1988), a trial court is generally required to make explicit factual findings on the factors that determine a
child’s best interests on the record or reversal is required. Id. While reversal is not required where it
would be futile, Constantini v Constantini, 171 Mich App 466; 430 NW2d 748 (1988), the present
matter falls within the general rule. Here, the trial court simply adopted the findings set forth in the FOC
investigator’s report, which was not in evidence. Although the FOC investigator testified before the
lower court, she did not provide a detailed explanation of her findings on subsection (j) and did not even
discuss subsection (g). What is more, at times the FOC investigator’s findings and the lower court’s
opinion actually conflicted. For instance, in its opinion, the lower court indicated that it spoke with the
child, but it did not explain whether the child had indicated a reasonable preference as required by the
statute. By contrast, the FOC investigator stated in his report that the child indicated a “very strong
-1
preference.” I would not find the failure to object determinative. Since the lower court failed to
adequately address the best interest factors as set forth in MCL 722.23; MSA 25.312(3) and to state it
findings on the record, I would reverse the lower court's order denying defendant's petition and remand
for further proceedings.
In all other respects, I agree with the majority opinion.
/s/ Harold Hood
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
